[bv-dev] Triggering method validation

Sebastian Thomschke sebastian.thomschke at web.de
Fri Jan 27 11:01:02 EST 2012


How about  @Guarded ?

On 27.01.2012 16:55, Hardy Ferentschik wrote:
> IMO the annotation has to most importantly make the difference between Bean
> and method validation clear. @ValidateConstraints doesn't.
>
>
> On Jan 27, 2012, at 4:18 PM, Gunnar Morling wrote:
>
>> One potential issue I see here is that "method validation" can also be
>> applied to constructors.
>>
>> One aspect of this is wording in the spec. There we should IMO have a
>> preamble saying something like "method level validation can refer to
>> methods and constructors." Another thing is the annotation name we're
>> trying to find. Something like @ValidateMethods suggests IMO that no
>> constructor validation is performed, or at least leaves room for
>> interpretation.
>>
>> So maybe @ValidateConstraints?
>>
>> Generally I think adjectives make better binding annotation names
>> (@Transactional being a good example) instead of imperative names like
>> the ones discussed so far. In Seam Validation it's hence named
>> @AutoValidating. That's surely not perfect, too, but maybe someone has
>> another idea based on that?
> _______________________________________________
> beanvalidation-dev mailing list
> beanvalidation-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev



More information about the beanvalidation-dev mailing list